OoA is accepted by virtually all scientists & fits current anthropological & genetic evidence. In fact genetic mapping shows there was a Y-chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve present in East Africa, so its not feasible to dispute it as all the PCA racial genetic mapping is linked to that as well. So if OoA is invalid, that also is automatically invalid.

About the ancient civilizations, I prefer to go via well established facts. And you are free to hold your opinion & me also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fading Light

Far, far, far less frequently.

Ok, its very much less in non-White Caucasians but still exists, so it cant be called unique to White Caucasians. But there are no colored eyes in Negroids, Australoids or Mongoloids naturally, unless they have Caucasian admixture. So the conclusion is colored eyes are unique to Caucasians as a whole. Blonde hair exists in Australoids naturally.

Quote:

You also need to know that the estimates for the lightening of skin color vary widely and are far from certain. I would argue that when we take into account the consistency with which this modification has taken place--not just among the varieties of humans, but also of many other animals--the decrease of melanin production in our skin probably stayed almost perfectly in step with our gradual journey north. In other words, the Aurignacians were probably fairly light-skinned.

That also seems reasonable, Aurignacians (Old Europeans) were probably light brown in color vs the very dark-brown of East Africans. However, light skin is not connected to colored eyes as different alleles code for them in different races, which is why East Asians dont have colored eyes even though some are very fair. OCA2 makes East Asians white and Europeans blue ? Gene Expression

Ian, why do you keep letting Tephra post here? This is such an obvious sockpuppet of his that I'm wondering why he is given a free pass for breaking Stormfront's rules. REPEATEDLY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tephra482

OoA is accepted by virtually all scientists

Wrong. Multiregional, Not Multiple Origins. OoA is preferred due to its political correctness, just like the theory that "races are social constructs" is preferred. Both theories are propagated by Marxist pseudo-scientists that have ruined the fields of anthropology and genetics with their BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tephra482

In fact genetic mapping shows there was a Y-chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve present in East Africa, so its not feasible to dispute it as all the PCA racial genetic mapping is linked to that as well. So if OoA is invalid, that also is automatically invalid.

The mitochondrial Adam & Eve are from Africa, but their ages are way, way older, much older than the OoA theory assumes. Multiregional hypothesis also accepts the fact that we started in Africa, but not as modern humans, but as erectus. The mitochondrial Adam & Eve were Homo erectus, not Homo sapiens.

Quote:

Mitochondrial "Eve" refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans. While the African origin of "Eve" is not questioned, dating is. This is important, since earlier estimates are consistent with the Multiregional model not the Out of Africa theory but since there is no agreement on the mutation rate of mtDNA the dates of "Eve" range from as recent as 140,000 to 1. 7 million years (Curnoe and Thorne, 2003). The molecular clock is constantly questioned by paleo-anthropologists:

"It all depends on the date calculated for Eve, and for this we must rely on DNA, whose reliability as a molecular clock has yet to be proven." (Wolpoff et al., 1991)

Ian, why do you keep letting Tephra post here? This is such an obvious sockpuppet of his that I'm wondering why he is given a free pass for breaking Stormfront's rules. REPEATEDLY.

Wrong. Multiregional, Not Multiple Origins. OoA is preferred due to its political correctness, just like the theory that "races are social constructs" is preferred. Both theories are propagated by Marxist pseudo-scientists that have ruined the fields of anthropology and genetics with their BS.

The mitochondrial Adam & Eve are from Africa, but their ages are way, way older, much older than the OoA theory assumes. Multiregional hypothesis also accepts the fact that we started in Africa, but not as modern humans, but as erectus. The mitochondrial Adam & Eve were Homo erectus, not Homo sapiens.

I don't think dog breeds even existed more than 200 years ago, 100,000 years is a long time evolutionarily.

And who really cares? DNA analysis of nucleosomes show we at one point had a common ancestor with pea pods. I don't put too much weight in DNA analysis - no one should.

And if blacks are EXACTLY like us then someone should start testing for lead in their water because they sure don't act like it.

OoA is accepted by virtually all scientists & fits current anthropological & genetic evidence. In fact genetic mapping shows there was a Y-chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve present in East Africa, so its not feasible to dispute it as all the PCA racial genetic mapping is linked to that as well. So if OoA is invalid, that also is automatically invalid.

Lol, you really have no idea wtf you're talking about do you? If you knew anything outside of what the out of africa doctrine contends, actually knew jack **** about genetics, actually conducted your own research into the subject of human origins, and had a mind of your own that could connect two and two together and allow you to see the discrepancies in the out of africa theory, then maybe you would realize that everything that you said is not only idiotic but that your out of africa theory does in fact have quite a few holes in it..

For example, it is a FACT that all non-Africans are part neanderthal. That's right, every race/group, besides Africans are part neanderthal (Europeans being the group with the highest amount of neanderthal admixture). Not to mention that there have never been neanderthal remains found in Africa.. O'h and not to also mention that the oldest human fossils and dna are found in Europe and the first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.

So, tell me.. If we are all of this "adam" and every hominid came from Africa, why is it that the neanderthal, an alleged subspecies of homo-sapien, is the closest relative to all NON-African humans? Why haven't any neanderthal remains been found in Africa? Why is neanderthal DNA the oldest and so rapidly distinct from DNA from Africans? Use your brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centuria

That also seems reasonable, [B][U]Aurignacians (Old Europeans)

You seem to enjoy talking out of your ass, huh? "Aurignacians" (who you proclaim are "old Europeans") are not a specific group of people as you suggest. Aurigacian (not plural), as in the Aurigacian culture, is a culture that is merely 40,000 years old, it is characterized by it's tools and art. "Old Europeans"? This may be an old european culture, but it's about 560,000 years younger than the true "old Europeans", neanderthals.

I think the OP was going out of their way to make it seem like white diversity = inferiority.

Truthfully, whites are more genetically diverse than blacks, where it counts. when people tout that blacks have more diversity....much of that extra DNA is junk DNA. You have to realize that your genome can grow simply by getting a virus.

Overall, white immune systems and genetic profile is far stronger and more stable than blacks. mixing does not create diversity, it reduces it. Two white parents are going to make a more genetically strong baby than a mixed couple.

If it weren't for the modern diet (created largely by white people), more blacks would be far less healthy. Whites can produce vitamin-d in their skin at a far higher rate than blacks. In fact, if you're black and aren't spending all day naked in the sun, you most likely have a vitamin D deficiency.....if you didn't have things like milk....you'd be even more vitamin deficient. Guess who pioneered things like milk, and discovered vitamins? that's right....white people!

This is such a complex subject, that books could be written to cover it all. But in the end, there is only one truth, and that is, over all, that whites are genetically superior to blacks. Not just in raw survivability, but also in the part of genetics that allows for the creation of a cohesive society, which involves things from kindness, to intelligence, to the greater good.

Even further, blacks are actually less evolved to survive in the world. Whites are more hearty in both warm and cold climates. Blacks are more likely to die more easily in the natural world than whites, and only thrive naturally in a very limited band around the equator. If you took away electricity and homes and all modern amenities created by white men, blacks would die in mass. They wouldn't get as much food, not to mention the right kinds of food. They would die of starvation, renal failure, hypothermia, and a plethora of things that primarily affect blacks that are only prevented by modern invention. In the natural world, things like skin cancer is the least of your worries....which is ironic, since it's blacks who are more likely to get most cancers, and even diseases.

You see, until the white man came along, blacks didn't even know that ****ting in the water they drink from is a bad idea. Haiti is a prime example of what a modern black society left to its own devices look like....and even then, they've been given tons of support from whites.....yet they're still ****ting in the water they drink from.

That's because these populations are mixed with white. If they were not mixed with white and obviously mostly white, they would not have such traits.

The problem is your knowledge is so poor and you are so arrogant. Normally I dont respond to stupid posts, but your post is so stupid and simultaneously you think you are extremely clever, hence it has to be responded to.

Fyi, all the Caucasoids subsets have shared ancestry & genes 45,000 ya in West Asia, which is why they have common traits like colored eyes & hair. You dont know anything of genetics. http://darwiniana.org/humantree3.gif

Do you think these dark-skinned East Indian Dravidian girls (not North Indian Aryan) living in remote villages with colored eyes & lighter hair have White ancestry? (S.E.Indian = Dravidian) http://darwiniana.org/humantree3.gif

Colored eyes means Caucasian, no other race has it. The frequency is much less in non-White Caucasians though its still present. Blonde hair is present naturally in Australoids though they dont have colored eyes. Also Cauacasian skin changes color more easily than other races which is why there are very fair Caucasians in Northern Europe, more tanned ones in Southern Europe/West Asia and dark ones in South Asia with the hottest weather. Caucasian race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hence, the features like eyes, nose, lips & hair are more important to identify race than skin color.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herja

Lol, you really have no idea wtf you're talking about do you? If you knew anything outside of what the out of africa doctrine contends, actually knew jack **** about genetics, actually conducted your own research into the subject of human origins, and had a mind of your own that could connect two and two together and allow you to see the discrepancies in the out of africa theory, then maybe you would realize that everything that you said is not only idiotic but that your out of africa theory does in fact have quite a few holes in it..

OoA does not mean we are all Negroes. It just says that we have a common ancestor in Africa 140-200,000 ya. We also have a common ancestor with chimps & amoebas, so does that make us chimps or amoebas?

Its not possible to dispute OoA with the current evidence. Its done using genetics which is very accurate, not anthropology which can cause errors. You or anyone else for that matter, can publish you own paper in Nature or Science magazine if you feel like you have new valid theory, instead of spewing nonsense here.

Quote:

For example, it is a FACT that all non-Africans are part neanderthal. That's right, every race/group, besides Africans are part neanderthal (Europeans being the group with the highest amount of neanderthal admixture). Not to mention that there have never been neanderthal remains found in Africa.. O'h and not to also mention that the oldest human fossils and dna are found in Europe and the first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago.

So, tell me.. If we are all of this "adam" and every hominid came from Africa, why is it that the neanderthal, an alleged subspecies of homo-sapien, is the closest relative to all NON-African humans? Why haven't any neanderthal remains been found in Africa? Why is neanderthal DNA the oldest and so rapidly distinct from DNA from Africans? Use your brain.

So what? Fyi, Neanderthal is different species not a subspecies of Homo Sapiens - you dont even know that. And even without Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture both Africans & non-Africans would still be Homo Sapiens.

And you know nothing about Neanderthal Evolution -

Comparison of the DNA of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens suggests that they diverged from a common ancestor between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago. This was probably Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis). Heidelbergensis originated between 800,000 and 1,300,000 years ago, and continued until about 200,000. It ranged over east and South Africa, Europe and west Asia. Between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago the African branch is thought to have started evolving towards modern humans and the European branch towards Neanderthals. Scientists do not agree when Neanderthals can first be recognised in the fossil record, with dates ranging 200,000 and 300,000 years BP.Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is why there are no Neanderthal skeletons in Africa.

Quote:

You seem to enjoy talking out of your ass, huh? "Aurignacians" (who you proclaim are "old Europeans") are not a specific group of people as you suggest. Aurigacian (not plural), as in the Aurigacian culture, is a culture that is merely 40,000 years old, it is characterized by it's tools and art. "Old Europeans"? This may be an old european culture, but it's about 560,000 years younger than the true "old Europeans", neanderthals.

First learn that the correct spelling is "Aurignacian" and not "Aurigacian" as you wrote. Yes they are Old Europeans, Neanderthal is a different species thats why they are not classified as Old Europeans. Homo Erectus also lived in Europe, so according to your logic they should also be Old Europeans?

Its obvious you are a Jew in disguise (and not a very clever one at that) with your "research" on the Holocaust. Are you planning on producing a movie or something?!

Using a hypothetical mathematical model and a wrong molecular clock. "Mitochondrial Eve" is close to two million years old, just like Multiregional theory says, not 140,000 like the race-denying OoA pseudo-scientists say.

Well, Hitler didn't want Germany to become a Mediterranean country. That's why he propagate the Nordic image.
Besides, the non-whites have black hair and brown eyes, so they admire light features in white people.